Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Category:Airlines disestablished in 2018[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To early for 2018. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of future categories that we need to plan for. We are already into the last quarter of 2017 so creating this appears to be quite reasonable. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though it shouldn't have been created in the first place. A significant amount of editor time is spent deleting and then recreating articles like this - I've recreated hundreds of date ones, and it's probably thousands once you include non-date ones (which admittedly don't have the inevitability of a future date, but still can be quite "plausible" categories that are briefly emptied). I completely get the point about "future" categories and I wouldn't encourage their creation ahead of time - but at the same time we're always going to get less experienced editors creating a small fraction of such categories and I wouldn't get too OCD about nuking them - within reason. Looking back since the millennium, an airline gets added to this kind of category roughly once a week, so it's definitely going to be a category that we need, probably within the first few weeks of January. So whilst I wouldn't create it if it didn't exist (and I've edited it to disable the WP:REDNOT categories), I think it's less bad to leave it empty for a few weeks rather than make unnecessary work for ourselves (with the associated opportunity costs).Le Deluge (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while we may keep it for now, it will most probably soon be tagged and speedily deleted as empty, without anyone's noticeable effort. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll keep it for now but please do not create such categories so early on. Last week before 2018 is good, last month OK but this is really early! gidonb (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afrikaner culture in Africa by city[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category level since it only contains one South-African child category and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afrikaner culture in South Africa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this is redundant subcategorization since 90% of the content of Category:Afrikaner culture relates to South Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Toward Merge I understand Oculi conceptual point about a country tree. But in practice, I don't see any navigational benefit with the current contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Toward Merge per RevelationDirect Le Deluge (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (procedural) - I agree with the editors above regarding the overlap between the two categories but we should not consider this category in isolation from Category:Afrikaner culture in Namibia. The taxonomy of 'South African culture' → 'Afrikaner culture' → 'Afrikaner culture in Namibia' does not make sense to me; while this category exists, it can be cleaned up; once merged, however, it cannot. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: True, but I prefer inefficient categorization to miscategorization. Perhaps the better solution, which would require a separate nomination, would be to upmerge the Afrikaner culture in [City] categories (essentially, dismantling Category:Ethnic groups in South Africa by city), thereby populating the national-level category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian vestment stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge category, delete template. – Fayenatic London 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only found 6 articles that are still in stub status. Propose to delete category, and double-upmerge the template to Category:Christianity stubs and Category:Clothing stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G.I. Joe characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. ℯxplicit 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too many G.I. Joe characters clogging up Category:Fictional soldiers. The vast majority of these characters are soldiers, and merit a shared subcategory to reduce clutter. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not too many, so the category may be nominated to be upmerged later on. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Support split, per nom and Marcocapelle. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional aircraft carriers of the United States Navy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT these articles are fine within the twin categories of Category:Fictional aircraft carriers and Category:Fictional ships of the United States Navy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Biorobots in fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was going to suggest moving this to Category:Biorobotics in fiction, per the recent move of its parent category, but then I realized that the category is overly broad. If fully populated, it will encompass literally every work that contains a robot that is either shaped like an organic being, or has organic parts. It seems, therefore, to have little encyclopedic utility. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian stock and station agents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, because the content of this category is companies only (in contrast to the New Zealand category below) the category is very poorly populated and it is not part of a broader scheme. The second parent category does not look like a very strong merge target, since these organizations deal with agriculture in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Fair enough, in that case the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • follow-up. A quick search has found about 30 articles about Australian stock and station agents (not just people who worked as agents for a while, but business founders, long-term general managers, etc). It's also now part of a broader scheme. As such, it's probably a good idea to keep the category. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand stock and station agents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "stock and station agent" is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. People involved are characterized more generally as farmers / land owners, or as merchants / business people. There are also a few companies in this category that can be moved to Category:Agriculture companies of New Zealand per WP:SMALLCAT like the Australian nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This occupation is different from hoteliers or auctioneers in the sense that the occupation of hotelier or auctioneer is mentioned in a biography, while stock and station agent is mentioned in hardly any of the biographies that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all those which do not mention their work in stock and station agency. There are still 16 articles left. Is that what you meant by "hardly any"? Grutness...wha? 01:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was wrong phrasing for sure, it was intended as "prominently mentioned" (in the sense of WP:DEFINING). Apologies for the misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches in Newcastle, Maine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Newcastle, Maine. Small category (3 articles) with little chance of growth. TM 12:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical decets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The last (for now) of three cats of bands by number; again, it's not defining, and one would think for instance that a band named "Pentagon" would be a quintet. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This CfD is now pointless because User:Hyacinth has already deleted this, along with Category:Musical quintets and Category:Solo music. CfD seems to be optional in some circumstances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Who created these categories and why? Hyacinth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you tell us, because they're now deleted and we can't see their history. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Good way to insult me with sarcasm and implication without citing any policy. Hyacinth (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Has anyone stated anything about any one of these categories besides whether they should or shouldn't exist? Hyacinth (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's exactly why we're here: to determine whether they should or shouldn't exist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Started separate thread here to discuss. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See my comments under "octet". — Lawrence King (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would expect that at some point (below 7) the number in a group becomes random and nothing to do with the music, that is, not defining. Oculi (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps by creating a few more specific categories and deleting (or emptying) the parent. In addition to Barbershop Quartets, I would suggest string and wind quartets, because these are playing classical music pieces, written for that number of players. Quintets will normally be a quartet + one non-member. Higher numbers are largely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical nonets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another category of bands by number, with the reasoning as below: number is not defining for these groups. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duets and barbershop quartets vocalists have a distinct impact on the music. How many accompanying instruments, backup singers, etc. seems more likely to be coincidental and non-defining to the actual music they produce. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See my comments under "octet". — Lawrence King (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reasons cited above provide a strong case for deletion. Dunarc (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would expect that at some point (below 7) the number in a group becomes random and nothing to do with the music, that is, not defining. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps by creating a few more specific categories and deleting (or emptying) the parent. In addition to Barbershop Quartets, I would suggest string and wind quartets, because these are playing classical music pieces, written for that number of players. Quintets will normally be a quartet + one non-member. Higher numbers are largely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical octets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving on from the en masse discussion, I'm proposing a few that should be less controversial. In this case we have a category that consists entirely of bands in a variety of genres. The number of members is a trivial characteristic of these, they were not put together to play music specifically written to be played by eight people, and it wouldn't surprise me that some of these varied in number of members over the years, so I would say this is not defining. Mangoe (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rationale for deletion outlined by Mangoe seems solid to me. I particularly agree with the point about numbers varying in many of these bands over time - The Doobie Brothers article for example is listed in this and several of the other numerical categories for this very reason. Equally using that example the article never once uses the word octet, reinforcing the point above that the number of members is not a particularly significant characteristic. Dunarc (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duets and barbershop quartets vocalists have a distinct impact on the music. How many accompanying instruments, backup singers, etc. seems more likely to be coincidental and non-defining to the actual music they produce. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fully agree with RevelationDirect and Mangoe. The band Yes (band) is a particular example: It is tagged as a "quintet", which is 99% correct (Yes had five members over most of its history, with brief exceptions) -- but tells us nothing interesting about the band. Nobody in human history will want to study all musical groups with five members and find the categorization of Yes useful to their project. Why not "bands with a prime number of members during years divisible by seven"? Yes qualifies for that, too. My only wish is that I could vote to delete quintet, sextet,a and septet as well. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would expect that at some point (below 7) the number in a group becomes random and nothing to do with the music, that is, not defining. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps by creating a few more specific categories and deleting (or emptying) the parent. In addition to Barbershop Quartets, I would suggest string and wind quartets, because these are playing classical music pieces, written for that number of players. Quintets will normally be a quartet + one non-member. Higher numbers are largely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Four Great Gardens of Guangdong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT of Category:Gardens in Guangdong, which already contains the two articles Le Deluge (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Up to year 1000 in China, England, France and Japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and delete. Once this is implemented, various templates will be edited, to avoid displaying tables of year categories that are now deprecated. Any interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Below is an example, the full list of proposed merging and deleting is on the Talk page
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article per category. The proposed merge mostly adds some 10 articles to every century category, or to every century (dis)establishments category, so the targets won't get overcrowded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge In some of these cases the category trees are very long and deep for one article. Categories are meant to group like articles, it does no one any good to merge too far down. In the case of Category:502 it is not clear that there is any need to seperate it at all. Clearly not a need to seperate below the level of continent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge etc as nom. These year categories produce long thin twigs that are a hindrance to navigation. However is there not a states established/disestablished that the 502 item should be in? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all as proposed. A monumental effort, to be sure. There is a possibility with so many items that some will be upmerged that would have been left alone if proposed individually, but I think the impact there would be minimal and, in any event, easily rectified. Taking Category:991 in England as a typical example, there is only one event listed for that year (an important battle, as it happens) and so the problem with the category may, in that regard, be WP:OVERCAT. The real problem, however, is that the category is in a sort of splendid isolation. There are ten empty years going forward before the next used category (1001). Going back, it's all the way to 972. There are only ten used subcats including this one in Category:Years of the 10th century in England. I think there is a need for continuity if an annual series of categories is to be justified. CravinChillies 10:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these countries still exist and one can navigate from the present day to the historic events. Tim! (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not completely remove the articles from the history by country categories, it is a merge from year to century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only one article per year mostly, and moreover many year categories that are completely empty and non-existing, I can't see how this can have potential to become viable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although this continues the trajectory of several recent CFD discussions, this will be far-reaching and a lot of work, so a stronger consensus would be desirable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge All I'm fine with using WP:SMALLCAT to complete a set when most of the categories have 5 or more articles. But having a whole anemic tree just hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all as proposed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all as proposed. But I have a horrible feeling we ought to be setting up redirects for individual years as we already get quite a lot of editors innocently creating early single-year categories. It's significant work and I don't like doing so many cat redirects, I'm not sure if there's a better way. Le Deluge (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is a related nomination at September 10. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional check needed -- I still support the principle, but you also need to make sure that the articles are in a relevant list article. I looked for 914 in England, and found 934 in England, which proved to be a redirect to 10th century in England. I was considering an article called Battle of Derby, which may in fact be misnamed. We know that Derby was captured, but we do not know much of the circumstances of this. There probably was a fight, but saying more than that is OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand this comment. Adding information to list articles can be done irrespective of how the categories are structured. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_3&oldid=1075705022"